Vincent de Phily <vincent.deph...@mobile-devices.fr> writes:
> It reads about 8G of the table (often doing a similar number of writes, but
> not always), then starts reading the pkey index and the second index (only 2
> indexes on this table), reading both of them fully (some writes as well, but
> not as many as for the table), which takes around 8h.
> And the cycle apparently repeats: process a few more GB of the table, then go
> reprocess both indexes fully. A rough estimate is that it spends ~6x more
> time
> (re)processing the indexes as it does processing the table (looking at data
> size alone the ratio would be 41x, but the indexes go faster). I'm probably
> lucky to only have two indexes on this table.
> Is that the expected behaviour ?
Yes. It can only remember so many dead tuples at a time, and it has
to go clean the indexes when the dead-TIDs buffer fills up. You could
increase maintenance_work_mem to increase the size of that buffer.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
